Richard,
I hope you understand - and I think you do - unlike your good friend - that
it's actually a lot easier to say nothing. Harsh as I may sound, I was
trying to be constructive.
I suggest that you cannot expect your reader to make allowances for you -
your ideas have to be clearly
will eventually catch
on to my brilliant ideas), people here would enjoy your keeping it on-list.
Thanks again.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Symbols
Richard,
I hope you
Richard,
Again, reread me precisely.
Saying your system is a complex system doesn't constitute a creative idea.
What's the big deal here? Why is your system truly new and different? Why
will it solve any of the unsolved problems of AGI? Where's the beef? And
what on earth does the thing do?
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard,
Again, reread me precisely.
Saying your system is a complex system doesn't constitute a creative
idea. What's the big deal here? Why is your system truly new and
different? Why will it solve any of the unsolved problems of AGI?
Where's the beef? And what on
Richard,
I can't swear that I did read it. I read a paper of more or less exactly
that length some time ago and do remember the Neats vs Scruffies bit.
Here's why I would have not made an effort to remember the rest - and this
is consistent with what what you do mention briefly here from
Richard,
I can't swear that I did read it. I read a paper of more or less exactly
that length some time ago and do remember the Neats vs Scruffies bit.
Here's why I would have not made an effort to remember the rest - and this
is consistent with what what you do mention briefly here from
Richard,
I can't swear that I did read it. I read a paper of more or less exactly
that length some time ago and do remember the Neats vs Scruffies bit.
Here's why I would have not made an effort to remember the rest - and this
is consistent with what what you do mention briefly here from time
Saying your system is a complex system doesn't constitute a creative
idea. What's the big deal here? Why is your system truly new and
different? Why will it solve any of the unsolved problems of AGI? Where's
the beef? And what on earth does the thing do? Site visitors investors
will want to know
Mike Tintner wrote:
Richard,
I can't swear that I did read it. I read a paper of more or less exactly
that length some time ago and do remember the Neats vs Scruffies bit.
Here's why I would have not made an effort to remember the rest - and
this is consistent with what what you do mention
Meet me halfway here and I am always willing to expand on anything I
have written.
One must be fully in touch with Global-Local Disconnect (GLD) to get the
gist of the paper.
john
---
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
On 31/03/2008, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you get the fact that once you generalize your idea enough, we're
all in complete agreement -- but that *a lot* of your specific facts are
just plain wrong (to whit -- the phrase *vision isn't just saccade-ing.
The retina does also
You're saying I can do it.. without explaining at all how. Sort of a miracle
happens here.
Crucially, you're quite right that if you have a machine that replicates the
human eye and brain and how it processes the Cafe Wall illusion, then you will
still see the illusion.
The problem is you
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Mike Tintner wrote:
snip
You guys probably think this is all rather peripheral and unimportant - they
don't teach this in AI courses, so it can't be important.
No. It means you're on the wrong list.
But if you can't see things whole, then you can't see or
?
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Cc: dan michaels
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Symbols
You're saying I can do it.. without explaining at all how. Sort of a
miracle happens here.
Crucially, you're quite right
it to the
main AGI consciousness while telling that consciousness that the picture is
what it actually sees?
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Cc: dan michaels
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Symbols
You're
Mike Tintner wrote:
I was not and am not arguing that anything is impossible. By definition
- for me - if the brain can do it, a computer or some kind of
machine should be able to do it eventually.
But you have to start by recognizing what neither you nor anyone else is
doing - that an AGI
Richard: What *exactly* do you mean by an AGI must be able to see in
wholes? My point is that you cannot make criticisms at that level of
vagueness.
I'll give the detailed explanation that I think you're looking for, within
a few days.
P.S. Maybe then you'll be able to return the favour,
Richard: I already did publish a paper doing exactly that ... haven't you
read it?
Yep. And I'm still mystified. I should have added that I have a vague idea
of what you mean by complex system and its newness, but no idea of why it
will solve any unsolved problem of AGI, and absolutely no
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Symbols
I was not and am not arguing that anything is impossible. By definition - for
me - if the brain can do it, a computer or some kind of machine should
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* agi@v2.listbox.com mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com
*Sent:* Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:02 PM
*Subject:* Re: [agi] Symbols
In this surrounding discussions, everyone seems deeply confused
- it's nothing personal, so is our entire culture - about the
difference
Notice how quickly the image changed. That's because you did it by
manipulating references rather than by moving around enough bits to
represent an image of one or the other kind of baseball.
The human mind does not manipulate pixels by pixels, nor even store
pixels. The mind uses feature
Related obliquely to the discussion about pattern discovery algorithms What
is a symbol?
I am not sure that I am using the words in this post in exactly the same way
they are normally used by cognitive scientists; to the extent that causes
confusion, I'm sorry. I'd rather use words in
From: Derek Zahn
Is anybody else interested in this kind of question, or am I simply inventing
issues that are not meaningful and useful?
The issues you bring up are key/core to a major part of AGI. Unfortunately,
they are also issues hashed over way to many times in a mailing list
In this surrounding discussions, everyone seems deeply confused - it's
nothing personal, so is our entire culture - about the difference between
SYMBOLS
1. Derek Zahn curly hair big jaw intelligent eyes . etc. etc
and
IMAGES
2.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are all next to illiterate - and I mean, mind-blowingly ignorant - about
how images function. What, for example, does an image of D.Z. or any person,
do, that no amount of symbols - whether words, numbers, algebraic
of subsequent processing costs.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Tintner
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Symbols
In this surrounding discussions, everyone seems deeply confused - it's
nothing personal, so is our entire culture
MW:
MT: Why are images almost always more powerful than the corresponding
symbols? Why do they communicate so much faster?
Um . . . . dude . . . . it's just a bandwidth thing.
Vlad:Because of higher bandwidth?
Well, guys, if the only difference between an image and, say, a
From: Mike Tintner
Well, guys, if the only difference between an image and, say, a symbolic -
verbal or mathematical or programming - description is bandwidth, perhaps
you'll be able to explain how you see the Cafe Wall illusion from a symbolic
description:
Sure! The Cafe Wall illusion
Ben,
OK - so Novamente has a system for
handling 'importance' already and
there is an importance updating function that feeds back to other aspects of
Attention Value. That's good in terms of Novamente having an internal
architecture capable of supporting and ethical system.
You're
Ben,
I don't
have a good argument on this point, just an intuition, based
on the fact that
generally speaking in narrow AI, inductive learning
based rules based
on a very broad range of experience, are much more
robust than expert-encoded
rules. The key is a broad range of
experience,
*
But the idea of
having just one Novamente seems somewhat unrealistic and quite risky to
me.
If the Novamente design is
going to enable boostraping as you plan then your one Novamente is going to
end up being very powerful. If you try to be the gatekeeper to this one
Ben,
Philip:
I think an AGI needs other AGIs to relate to as a community so that a
community
of learning develops with multiple perspectives available.
This I think
is the only way that the accelerating bootstraping of
AGIs can
be handled with any possibility of being safe. **
Philip,
What would help me
to understand this idea would be to understand in more detail what kinds of
rules you want to hardwire.
Do you want to
hardwire, for instance, a rule like "Don'tkill
people."
And then give it
rough rule-based definitions of "don't", "kill" and "people", and
***
At the moment you have truth and attention
values attached to nodes and links. I'm wondering whether you need to have
a third numerical value type relating to 'importance'. Attention has a
temporal implication - it's intended to focus significant mental resources on a
key issue in the
In a message dated 2/26/2003 9:47:58 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Human children will learn that certain sound patterns are associated
with patterned human behaviour. So very soon (plus or minus one
year) children will start to accumulate awareness of words that they
Ben,
One question
is whether it's enough to create general
pattern-recognition
functionality, and let it deal with seeking
meaning for symbols
as a subcase of its general behavior. Or does
one need to create
special heuristics/algorithms/structures just for
guiding this
particular
36 matches
Mail list logo
